Does anybody make a 4WD truck with 'good' MPG?

  • Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.

    We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.

    We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was going to be in th emarket for another truck in '08 but I might wait another year.
Ford is introducing a small diesel for it's F150 and it is supposed to get about 25 MPG and have the torque to pull a trailer too. The motors are being cast as I write this.

But the biggest news is the HLA option. "Hydraulic Launch Assist". This is a hybrid. Hydraulic energy is stored during braking and when the truck pulls out from a stop, this energy runs a hydraulic motor and the truck uses much less fuel. A test mule of an F150 got 60 MPG. Yes, boys and girls, 60 MPG. The buzz is that this is gonna revolutionize the truck world. UPS is now using it in it's new fleet. No batteries, no electric motors. And they're talking about it being just a $1,000 option. I hope they don't kill this at Ford.
 
VT-Woodburner said:
I was going to be in th emarket for another truck in '08 but I might wait another year.
Ford is introducing a small diesel for it's F150 and it is supposed to get about 25 MPG and have the torque to pull a trailer too. The motors are being cast as I write this.

But the biggest news is the HLA option. "Hydraulic Launch Assist". This is a hybrid. Hydraulic energy is stored during braking and when the truck pulls out from a stop, this energy runs a hydraulic motor and the truck uses much less fuel. A test mule of an F150 got 60 MPG. Yes, boys and girls, 60 MPG. The buzz is that this is gonna revolutionize the truck world. UPS is now using it in it's new fleet. No batteries, no electric motors. And they're talking about it being just a $1,000 option. I hope they don't kill this at Ford.
Click to expand...

That kind of technology would really help close up the city/hwy numbers, but it's not goingt o get you a 60mpg F150.

Steve
 
You use all the gas during startup, not while cruising. And no, I don't believe the '09 F150 will get anywhere near 60MPG. But I have heard reports of 35+, so that's good enough for me.
 
Warren said:
babalu87 said:
1994 Dodge Dakota 4WD and I get close to 20 MPG driving 65 on the highway
Click to expand...

You're the first one I've heard of who got more than 16 on the highway. Must be a 6 cylinder.
Click to expand...


92 Dodge Dakota, 318 Auto, 19.7 HWY and 16 City. 191K miles on it.

Matt
 
RWD. I'm not sure if the next truck will be 4WD or not. I've only been stuck in snow or mud once... About 300 feet from my house. As I was walking home the plow turned down the street... ticked me off to no end...

Matt
 
I traded off my F-250 PSD 4X4 for a Chevy Colorado. I get 19 mpg with a combination of city and highway driving. I thought I'd get better than this. Maybe 8000 miles isn't broke in yet? Just highway I can get low 20's mpg. My dad has the same truck and claims he gets 24 on the highway. Not much load capacity for firewood in the colorado in that 5' box, so I use a trailer that is capable of hauling 4000lbs. Much easier than loading that F-250.
 
How fast do you drive on the highway?
That could be why your dad is getting better mileage in the same truck, I know I picked up quite a bit on highway mileage by driving 65 instead of 80.

I just hope they start putting a diesel in the Dakota by the time I am ready to buy another one, my truck with a diesel would be even better than what it is now.
 
todd, your mpg my increase a little after some more miles on it, but don't expect a big change.
it seems that tire inflation has the most dramatic effect on fuel economy. make sure they are
properly inflated.
bruce
 
I always thought that a diesel in a Dakota would be a good idea too. I'm not going to hold my breath for one though.

Matt
 
katooom said:
The wife has finally broken me. She does not want to over-winter with my beloved '82 Datsun KingCab 4WD truck. It has the rust cancer pretty bad, and can be a bit finicky. So I am looking for a new truck. 4WD is a must to get to our place in winter. I prefer manual transmission.

Problem is, all of the trucks I have seen, Toyota Tacoma, Nissan Frontier, Big4, etc, have what I consider very poor MPG ratings. Only Toyota makes a 4cyl 4WD - and it is only rated at 19/23 (2007 EPA). That is pathetic! The Nissan Frontier is 6cyl (they do not offer 4cyl in 4WD) and is 17/21. And none of the trucks available are really 'compact' anymore. What has happened to the 'small' truck market?

These MPG's seems very poor to me, and I can't find much other choice. I prefer to buy new, because I plan to keep this thing for quite a while. Also, I have found it very difficult to find Manual Transmission models on the lot. Nissan only made 14% of their Frontiers in 2007 with the Manual Trans.

Advice or comments?
Click to expand...

Old 82' datsun??? How many miles on that (I would guess) 'Z-Motor'??? (8 Spark plugs yes?)

They definatley don't "make them like that anymore". Nissan definately dropped the ball...I've always been a big nissan fan but their new trucks have "blended into the pack" too much for me.

So is the old nissan headed for the boneyard soon??? "How many miles on the clock???"

Keep us posted on the new truck...
 
In 1996 when I bought my Ranger (4WD, 4-cyl, short box) it was the most efficient 4WD pickup available; I'm not sure what it was rated but I always get around 23MPG (mostly highway miles, 70MPH when I can). I have to say I'm surprised they haven't improved compact pickup MPG any since then. My wife's new Ford Freestyle (a SUV/minivan/station wagon type vehicle) is larger, heavier, has a larger 6-cyl engine, definitely has more power, and yet gets better mileage. Perhaps Detroit just doesn't see MPG as much of a truck selling point.
 
keyman512us said:
Old 82' datsun??? How many miles on that (I would guess) 'Z-Motor'??? (8 Spark plugs yes?)
Click to expand...

Right on Key. 720 series Datsun with the 8plug Z-22 (2.2l) motor. 180K miles. Mechanically the truck has been solid as a rock. The main reason I need a new truck is the rust cancer - I've fought it for years but it is getting the best of me. We lived in FL for 9years and that took its toll. Plus, here in Northern VA they salt the roads when we get a cool drizzle.

I wish somebody still made a small, lightweight, 4cyl 4WD truck. Even the 'small' trucks of today are big. I guess it is sort of like the houses around here, I feel sorry for anybody looking for an small reasonably affordable house - can't be found. Maybe I'll try to squeeze one more year out of the Dats, but the wife is frowning.
 
DiscoInferno said:
In 1996 when I bought my Ranger (4WD, 4-cyl, short box) it was the most efficient 4WD pickup available; I'm not sure what it was rated but I always get around 23MPG (mostly highway miles, 70MPH when I can). I have to say I'm surprised they haven't improved compact pickup MPG any since then.
Click to expand...

Ummm... they have. My 05 Ranger 4cyl with longbed gets 29.2mpg in mixed city/hwy driving.
 
Apples to oranges. The 4wd aspect contributes significantly to the efficiency of a compact pickup. Check the 05 ranger 4wd.
 
Did you ever check out the Honda? Do a Google on Ridgeline MPG, and there are a few people out there getting some decent mileage. Maybe not as good as you'd get with a 4 banger, but not far off. Plus I'm sure the reliability is good.
 
Highbeam said:
Apples to oranges. The 4wd aspect contributes significantly to the efficiency of a compact pickup. Check the 05 ranger 4wd.
Click to expand...

It's actually worse now than in 1996, partly because you can't get a 4-banger 4WD Ranger anymore. So my 96 was rated as 20/25 (2.3L 4cyl) and the 1996 3L 6cyl was 18/24, but the best 2007 4WD (3L 6cyl) is only 17/21. (These are all the "old" mileage numbers.) The 2WD versions, on the other hand, have improved for both the 4cyl and 6cyl.

All my numbers come from http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ BTW.
 
Warren said:
Did you ever check out the Honda? Do a Google on Ridgeline MPG, and there are a few people out there getting some decent mileage. Maybe not as good as you'd get with a 4 banger, but not far off. Plus I'm sure the reliability is good.
Click to expand...

Ridgline doesn't have a full frame IIRC. That may make a difference in long term durability in the 'load the bed up with firewood department'. Mileage numbers don't mean as much if you can't use the truck like a truck for long. When they first came out I saw the local dealer selling them with plows attached. I wouldn't want to buy one of those particular ridgelines used.

Matt
 
I'm sure it's no Ford F 350, but we're talking about small trucks with low payload capability anyway.

The Honda Ridgeline isn't an Odyssey with a truck body.. it does have a Closed-box frame, It's all just welded together. It's a heck of a lot more torsionally rigid than a Chevy Colorado!

If the goal is super strength and the truck is going to be loaded such that it's beyond the weekend warrior duty, the good MPG and big capability ARE mutually exclusive and the answer is to go with a full size truck, and most likely at least a 3/4 ton.
 
my 07 f-250 sd gets 14 and is a little stiff, made to work and tow just about what you want to do, or you can be a bad ass and get a diesel for 6000$ more and ride around with no bedlinner or tow hitch,, lots of them around!
 
I have a Ranger, with 6cyl, 4x4, 5 speed automatic, I get 20-24 mpg on the highway. My friend has the same truck but 2 wheel drive and a 4 banger he gets 23 on the highway. My spec sheet if I remember correctly said 411 rear end, why the heck do they put such low gearing on it?
 
Smokey said:
My spec sheet if I remember correctly said 411 rear end, why the heck do they put such low gearing on it?
Click to expand...

I dont know but with all the technology we (humans) have at our disposal there has to be a way of having a much different gear once you are on the highway.

Mine has a 3.83 and does OK but I would bet the mileage could be much better with a gear in the low 2's

411 is just silly
 
The odd part about that is everyone on the lot had the same rear-end. That's why they put the 5 speed trans in it, what about a 3.50 or 3.23 gearing, imagine the highway economy.
 
I guess most pickup owners are more concerned about low-end power than highway mileage? My 4 banger sucks at both ends, in any case. I have no low end to spare even though my truck spends 95% of its time on the highway. At 70mph I'm over 3000RPM in 5th gear, but it's about maxed out power wise.
 
Highway mileage is dominated by drag. 4WD = higher off the ground + increased frontal area + more powertrain drag = less mpg

City driving is dominated by weight. 4WD = heavier (front axle + transfer case) thus less mpg

On top of all that, the ride is generally harsher with the 4wd suspension - the Tacoma is a good example of this. 2wd rides really nice, 4wd jars your teeth out.

If one needs the 4wd on a daily basis (low range) there is no substitute.

If it is only "insurance" get a 2wd wth a diff lock and chains for those occasional "winter situations". And get snow tyres on a set of steel wheels and use them. That is much more effective insurance.

This solution gets better mileage, is cheaper, quieter and more comfortable. Fit air springs to stiffen the suspension for the times when you actually need to carry a heavy load.

Keith
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
Does EPA Exempt / Decorative means poor efficiency?
Replies
7
Views
1K
The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces
Czech Ivan from NJ
C
webfish
  • Locked
Gas Appliances UNVENTED VS VENTED GAS APPLIANCES
Replies
0
Views
6K
Articles
webfish
webfish
webfish
  • Locked
General GLOSSARY OF COMMON HEARTH AND HEATING TERMS
Replies
0
Views
7K
Articles
webfish
webfish
Vic99
  • Locked
Wood Hauling Truck
Replies
67
Views
22K
The Gear
Flatbedford
Flatbedford
Top Bottom
Back